Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 13:00:05 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 128 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2025 20:00:06 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0d7b7e128809f1e0bad2050f21bb5c16"; logging-data="824204"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19KrRJqk+SkFWoaXv5pKCQ1" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:nGwmh/bxDUc5boIMqReA743cqcI= In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250209-4, 2/9/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean On 2/9/2025 12:47 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 09.feb.2025 om 17:49 schreef olcott: >> On 2/9/2025 10:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 17:37 schreef olcott: >>>> On 2/9/2025 9:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 16:15 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 2/9/2025 2:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 07:04 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:49 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 15:43 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 00:13 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> Experts in the C programming language will know that DD >>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>>>>>> "if" statement. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it demonstrates the incapability of HHH to correctly >>>>>>>>>>> determine the halting behaviour of DD >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The finite string DD specifies non-terminating recursive >>>>>>>>>>>> simulation to simulating termination analyzer HHH. This >>>>>>>>>>>> makes HHH necessarily correct to reject its input as >>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The finite string defines one behaviour. This finite string, >>>>>>>>>>> when given to an X86 processor shows halting behaviour. This >>>>>>>>>>> finite string,when given to a world class simulator, shows >>>>>>>>>>> halting behaviour. Only HHH fails to see this proven halting >>>>>>>>>>> behaviour. So it proves the failure of HHH. >>>>>>>>>>> HHH aborts the simulation on unsound grounds one cycle before >>>>>>>>>>> the simulation would terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); >>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P); >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> int DD() >>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); >>>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status; >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DD); >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ >>>>>>>>>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >>>>>>>>>>>> has fully operational HHH and DD >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem has always been a mathematical mapping >>>>>>>>>>>> from finite strings to behaviors. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. And the behaviour of this finite string has been proven >>>>>>>>>>> to show halting behaviour. Only Olcott's HHH fails to see it. >>>>>>>>>>> His misunderstanding is that he thinks that the behaviour >>>>>>>>>>> defined by the finite string depends on the simulator. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive simulation it is a >>>>>>>>>> verified fact that DD cannot possibly halt. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which proves the failure of HHH. It does not reach the end of a >>>>>>>>> halting program. All other methods show that DD halts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your comment only proves that you lack sufficient >>>>>>>> understanding of the C programming language. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a proof of lack of logical reasoning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Verified fact 1: DD halts >>>>>> >>>>>> Fallacy of equivocation error. >>>>>> (a) All men are mortal >>>>>> (b) No woman is a man >>>>>> ∴ No woman is mortal >>>>> >>>>> Yes, the claim that DD does not halt is indeed such a fallacy: >>>>> >>>>> (a) Direct execution and all simulators show that DD halts. >>>>> (b) My simulator is different >>>>>  > ∴ DD does not halt. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The input to HHH(DD) cannot possibly terminate normally. >>>>>> Referring to some other DD does not change this verfied fact. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That DD halts is a verified fact. >>>> >>>> The input to HHH(DD) DOES NOT HALT !!! >>> >>> It is a verified fact that the finite string describes a halting >>> program. Du to a bug, HHH does not see that, because it investigates >>> only the first few instructions of DD. HHH is unable to process the >>> call from DD to HHH correctly. >> >> No sense talking to people that lack sufficient technical >> skill to verify facts. There is no bug and you know it. > > No sense to talk to people denying verified facts. > >> >> DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally. > > Indeed, because HHH fails to simulate itself up to the end. > This is verified with: > >        int main() { >          return HHH(main); >        } > There is no simulating itself to the end with the above example either. Apparently you do not understand the basic notion of recursion very well. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer